Open thread: The first battle of New Hampshire

posted at 8:00 pm on January 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

The artillery fire begins at 9 p.m. ET on ABC and, after an overnight ceasefire, resumes bright and early tomorrow at … 9 a.m. Really. Note, though, that the second debate won’t air live on NBC but rather in your regular local time slot for “Meet the Press.” If you’re recording it, look for it then.

Back-to-back debates presents an interesting strategic question for the Not Romneys. Should they use both forums as an opportunity to pile on Mitt in hopes of dragging him back to earth or should they use one debate to beat on Romney and the other to distinguish themselves from each other? Even at this late date, they still need to define themselves: Apparently, a not insignificant chunk of New Hampshirites was surprised to learn this week that Rick Santorum is against gay marriage. Besides, now that the new polls have showed Romney’s huge lead in NH holding up after Iowa, the calculus has changed for the rest of field. Instead of trying to pull the upset, they’re really trying to place second and then tout that in South Carolina as proof that they’ve been crowned the sole remaining viable alternative to Mitt. So while Romney will take his licks this weekend, (a) Santorum and Ron Paul will hammer each other in hopes of locking up second; (b) Paul and Huntsman will hammer each other in a mini-battle for independents and liberals; and (c) Perry will hammer Santorum in order to kill his momentum before SC and clear the way for a second look at Texas. (Aside: Why is Perry participating in these debates?) The only guy out there who’s likely to train all of his fire on Romney is — well, you know:

With two debates 10 hours apart this weekend, Good Newt versus Bad Newt will be one of the most compelling subplots. It’s clear he hasn’t totally decided which approach to take yet, and even if he does aim to tone it down, it’s not clear he has the discipline to do so…

“He was ‘the ideas guy’ until three weeks ago, when he became a process guy,” said one veteran GOP strategist, who is neutral in the race. “Now all he talks about is process, polling, negative ads, gross ratings points. He has no campaign. He has a moving think tank. The psychology that’s going on is, he thought he was going to win. And he’s devastated with what happened to him and he can’t quite comprehend it. He’s just fuming inside. He can’t believe it happened to him.”

The best window into Gingrich’s state of mind on the eve of the debate may be this Newsweek piece reporting that his Super PAC is set to roll out a 27-minute video savaging Romney for the layoffs at companies acquired by Bain Capital. Actual quote from the narration: “A story of greed. Playing the system for a quick buck. A group of corporate raiders, led by Mitt Romney. More ruthless than Wall Street. For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town.” Go look at the webpage that the Super PAC has set up to showcase the video. See now why I’m using artillery metaphors for tonight? I don’t know why Newt would go this route after the heat he took on the right for his earlier jab at Mitt’s Bain earnings; it’ll alienate plenty of conservatives, in part because it’s precisely the sort of attack Obama’s preparing for Romney as part of his big class-warfare election strategy. But maybe Newt doesn’t care anymore. Maybe damaging Romney is more important to him now than winning. Or maybe he’s worried about Santorum’s blue-collar appeal to white working-class voters in the Republican base and figures he can kill two birds with one stone this way, positioning himself as the true blue-collar champion against white-collar demon Mitt Romney. (Added bonus: If Newt somehow won the nomination this way, it would partly neutralize Obama’s strategy in the general.) Cynical, yet effective. Maybe?

Here’s the Hot Air/Townhall Twitter widget. Ed will be updating live from the debate. One other thing to keep an eye on: Will Santorum go after Newt? He’d rather focus on Romney but he can’t afford to finish behind Gingrich in NH. That would fuel a “Newt comeback/Santorum fade” narrative before South Carolina, where Newt’s still reasonably strong, and that would probably finish Santorum off. And because Gingrich always does well at the debates, he’s probably bound to get some sort of bounce after this weekend anyway. Santorum might have no choice but to attack.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

That’s what I can’t stand about social liberals, especially ones my age, they’ll make the Gay Jokes behind those folks backs, and then call people like me a bigot for not doing that but being against Gay Marriage.

Bluray on January 8, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Yeah, imagine if Hannity or some conservative ran those Ambigiously Gay Duo cartooons that SNL use to have. Jon Stewart and MNSBC would throw a s—-fit about it being anti-gay.

I’m not surprised. And it’s not that I’m in Santorum’s camp or anything, but jeez, at least try to get it right if you’re going to criticize him, lol.
xblade on January 8, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Exactly. She went on a hilarious rant about me the other day in response to a comment I made about Perry’s debate performances and the suggestion (by some of his supporters!) that he was on pain meds for his back surgery. She assumed incorrectly I couldn’t understand his Southern drawl (I live in the South), assumed incorrectly I wouldn’t like Haley Barbour because he has a heavy Southern accent (I had just complimented him at another thread, and had defended George Bush earlier), assumed that my comment was made because I was “snobish”. In other words she got everything wrong. The finale was an allegation that this prejudice against Southern accents reflected poorly on my character (I paraphrase).

Way to completely change the subject there. You said that moderate Romney supporters should look into Huntsman because Romney agrees with you on abortion, gay marriage, and taxes. I focused on one of those areas (abortion) and pointed out that Huntsman is pro-life. Is it really that difficult to follow a conversation?

Romney supporters don’t care about abortion or gay marriage either way. They just get turned off when a candidate ONLY focuses on those peripheral litmus tests.

haner on January 8, 2012 at 12:41 AM

I don’t think this is generally true. The moderates who support Romney think he doesn’t care about abortion or gay marriage. Trust me on this. He sounded more socially conservative than Santy did in the debate tonight. Sounded like Reagan, really.

If Romney had always been a conservative, he would have already wrapped this thing up.

I’m so thankful Mitt will be our nominee when I think of how horribly Cain or Palin would’ve fumbled that absurd state condoms non-issue. It’s nice to have a candidate who can think on his feet instead of allowing Obama’s media operatives to be take him down with dumb Gotcha questions.

Way to completely change the subject there. You said that moderate Romney supporters should look into Huntsman because Romney agrees with you on abortion, gay marriage, and taxes. I focused on one of those areas (abortion) and pointed out that Huntsman is pro-life. Is it really that difficult to follow a conversation?

McDuck on January 8, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I’m talking to a lot of different people. It’s not persoanl if I appear to misunderstand or “ignore” sometning you say.

I don’t think this is generally true. The moderates who support Romney think he doesn’t care about abortion or gay marriage. Trust me on this. He sounded more socially conservative than Santy did in the debate tonight. Sounded like Reagan, really.

If Romney had always been a conservative, he would have already wrapped this thing up.

Dr. Tesla on January 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Which had me wondering, did Romney’s strong language on abortion and gay marriage do more to ingratiate Romney to social conservatives or to detoxify Santorum for moderates?

Yep and Mitt got raked over the coals here for it, too. And utterly ridiculous thing to say.

Aslans Girl on January 8, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Except in Santorum’s quote, he contrasts serving in a “civilian sense” to serving in a “military sense.” Romney’s quote, which was a little more unfortunate, still didn’t directly compare anything else to military service.

Which had me wondering, did Romney’s strong language on abortion and gay marriage do more to ingratiate Romney to social conservatives or to detoxify Santorum for moderates?

steebo77 on January 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Well, the myth is that moderates are universially pro-gay marriage although I think that’s a media lie.

Most Americans aren’t that down for gay marriage…it just seems that way when you read pundits and watch tv. Even libs in California voted down gay marriage, but the media makes it out as just a “red state” thing.

I think Santorum can appeal to blue collar white Democrats who don’t like Obama, more than anybody else we have. He’s a better candidate than people want to admit.

We can end this thread now, Michael Barone has declared that Romney has clenched the nomination. He won by 8 votes in Iowa and will win New Hampshire, but the race is over I guess. Two states is all you need. Time to get in line and tow the line.

I don’t think this is generally true. The moderates who support Romney think he doesn’t care about abortion or gay marriage. Trust me on this. He sounded more socially conservative than Santy did in the debate tonight. Sounded like Reagan, really.

If Romney had always been a conservative, he would have already wrapped this thing up.

Dr. Tesla on January 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM

You still don’t understand. Most Romney supporters are personally pro-life and not that enthused about gay marriage (but fine with civil unions). But they don’t like a politician who keeps this issue on their sleeves ALL THE TIME like Santorum does.

Romney can get away with sounding more socially conservative than Santorum because that’s not his raison d’etre, it’s frankly peripheral as it should be. It doesn’t offend Romney supporters at all for Romney to be tough on social issues. Romney supporters are almost by definition not those who make abortion and gay marriage into litmus tests. They are just as pissed off when Democrats turn those issues into litmus tests as well.

[b]As for Rick Perry, he was as good as he has been in these debates and, his New Hampshire office having been shuttered this week, he aimed his comments straight at Republican voters in South Carolina, just as he shot that coyote that was threatening his dog. I have to say that if I had made that horrifying 53 second brain freeze I would be reluctant ever to appear in public again; give Perry credit for doing so readily, often, with good humor, and improving his game as he went forward. That says something significantly positive about him. He hit Ron Paul on earmarks, made the point that he has commanded 20,000 troops, took on what he called (with some justification, I think) the Obama administration’s war against religion and against religious service providers, called forthrightly for renegotiating with the Iraqi government and sending troops back into Iraq (though he didn’t state it in that order). When asked at the end where he’d be on Saturday night if he were not running, he said, “At the shooting range.” South Carolina, here we come.
[/b]

For those of you that don’t think the dog on the roof will be a big story, it WILL. I didn’t even know about it until recently.

Disgusting.

Midwestprincesse on January 8, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Ever see the movie Vacation with Chevy Chase? There was an unfortunate dog related oversight/accident on the park of the driver. Although in the movie no dogs were actually harmed whereas Mitt, I am informed, harmed a precious pooch. A fuzzy lovable animal that can no longer enjoy the pleasure of his chew toys.

Except in Santorum’s quote, he contrasts serving in a “civilian sense” to serving in a “military sense.” Romney’s quote, which was a little more unfortunate, still didn’t directly compare anything else to military service.

steebo77 on January 8, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Yes, I pointed that out to Rapunzel who is spamming the thread with inaccurate/incomplete information on Santorum. She has yet to answer any of my posts about her inaccurate or misleading links. I’ve put her on “ignore.”

Romney can get away with sounding more socially conservative than Santorum because that’s not his raison d’etre, it’s frankly peripheral as it should be. It doesn’t offend Romney supporters at all for Romney to be tough on social issues. Romney supporters are almost by definition not those who make abortion and gay marriage into litmus tests. They are just as pissed off when Democrats turn those issues into litmus tests as well.

haner on January 8, 2012 at 12:57 AM

I tend to disagree with this…I think most moderates in our party essentially want to make it impossible for a pro-lifer/anti-gay marriage conservative to be our nominee. They do want that to be a litmus test.

I do believe Santy is for civil unions but not gay marriage which is what Obama says too. Gays seem to love Obama but hate Santy.

The skit of Santourium wasn’t all that funny. I wish the actor would have just acted like Santorum but instead he acted to normal and rational but he did talk forever like Santorum:)
Capitalist75 on January 8, 2012 at 12:27 AM

I forgot to add that Santourium is always seem way to serious, edgy and angry all the time. Just the right combination of what we need as commander and chef:)

The dog on the roof story was gone over at length at the last election-it didn’t seem to hurt him much. Sorry, he’ll still be the nominee.

BettyRuth on January 8, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Oh, did he win the nomination in ’08? No? Who knows, but I think the dog story could have been one of the MANY reasons — obviously not a big reason, but a small one that might’ve made people think “huh?” And should he be the nominee, PETA will be out in full-force about it. They’re just keeping their powder dry for now.

FYI, yesterday I saw a pic on twitter of an anti-Romney protester who put a stuffed dog on the roof of his car with a sign saying something about how dogs hate him. It’s still out there.

“Wanna do it out her on the stoop or inside on the floor in the hallway.”

Horace on January 8, 2012 at 12:58 AM

LOL. That’s not the question, but you get an A+ for humor even though some might find your comment utterly sexist and inappropriate in a liberal PC kind of way. Actually my entire riddle is kind of sexist so I apologize.

Instead of the Playboy Mansion it could be a Chuck E. Cheese or a Wally World or a GodFather’s Pizza Parlor.

It doesn’t matter what you say. This story, to me, was never known. I’m not your typical 50 yr old voter. I’m under 30.

This is why he’ll fail as a nominee.

Midwestprincesse on January 8, 2012 at 1:02 AM

I just found out about that right now in this thread, and while my initial reaction is shock, its not that bad… I’m sure it was secured to the car and I see lots of people drive around with a dog in the back of their truck in the open air.

I tend to disagree with this…I think most moderates in our party essentially want to make it impossible for a pro-lifer/anti-gay marriage conservative to be our nominee. They do want that to be a litmus test.

Dr. Tesla on January 8, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Well then I guess I’m not a moderate Republican.

I believe in equal rights for gays in civil unions, but no marriage, although states should be allowed to decide on their own since marriage certification is done by states.

And I’m pro-life starting with implantation (medical definition of pregnancy). So Plan B is okay.

Oh, did he win the nomination in ’08? No? Who knows, but I think the dog story could have been one of the MANY reasons — obviously not a big reason, but a small one that might’ve made people think “huh?” And should he be the nominee, PETA will be out in full-force about it. They’re just keeping their powder dry for now.

FYI, yesterday I saw a pic on twitter of an anti-Romney protester who put a stuffed dog on the roof of his car with a sign saying something about how dogs hate him. It’s still out there.

Aslans Girl on January 8, 2012 at 1:03 AM

OK maybe the dog incident might be a slight negative, overall, but somehow, I think we can count on PETA not being much of a factor here. If anything, their inevitable “Romney wants a canine HOLOCAUST!!!111!!” spiel will help him.

If putting the dog on the roof isn’t bad enough, when the dog messed himself up (probably due to the fear of being stuck on the roof of a car on highway), the Romneys pulled into a gas station, hosed the dog off, and ut him back up there. That’s the rest of this story, it’s awful.

Have to say that Paul won that exchange saying he went when he was called despite having kids…made Newt look bad.

workingclass artist on January 7, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Nah, Newt made a good point talking about his dad. Everyone with family overseas will resonate, I think. Only the fake macho “chicken-hawk” jerks will be turned off Newt here, and they’re the type that were almost certainly supporting Paul anyway.

If you win no new supporters and don’t dissuade supporters from the other guy, then you haven’t won anything.

RINO in Name Only on January 7, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Huh? Because Ron Paul showed up for the military draft even though he was married with children (and I am notfor kooky/brave Ron Paul), Newt being an Army Brat who evaded service in Vietnam should get a pass, being married with a child because his Dad was military???

It’s a terrible argument that only “fake macho chicken-hawk(s)’ could be turned off Newt here, and they’re the type that were almost certainly supporting Paul anyway.”

Santorum doesn’t talk about gays all the time. He gets asked by the media about it because he talked about gay issues in his book, and they want to use it to attack him. It’s fair game if it’s in his book, but his campaign is not focused on gays. Anybody that says this isn’t paying attention to his campaign or they are just hacks.

For those of you that don’t think the dog on the roof will be a big story, it WILL. I didn’t even know about it until recently.

Disgusting.

Midwestprincesse on January 8, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I’m not a huge Romney fan, but I am an animal lover. The dog story is stupid. Was it a mistake? Sure. But the dog survived, albeit a little scared. Disgusting? Only if you consider disgusting having dog crap run down the window of your car.

I just found out about that right now in this thread, and while my initial reaction is shock, its not that bad… I’m sure it was secured to the car and I see lots of people drive around with a dog in the back of their truck in the open air.

El_Terrible on January 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM

He put the dog on the roof of the car for a long road trip, not a jaunt to the local store. The poor dog was so traumatized that — in Romney’s own words as he LAUGHED about it — the dog crapped all over the roof the the car with diarrhea and Romney had to stop at a gas station, wash the dog and the car down and then continue on the vacation, with the dog still tied to the roof of the car. Frankly I find not one thing amusing about it.

Sacre Bleu! I am agreeing with you! I love dogs and I’m glad cats allow me to worship them. What Romney did to that poor dog is despicable. Truly abusive. Someone should strap Mittens to the roof of a car and go for a drive.

I’m not a huge Romney fan, but I am an animal lover. The dog story is stupid. Was it a mistake? Sure. But the dog survived, albeit a little scared. Disgusting? Only if you consider disgusting having dog crap run down the window of your car.

It doesn’t matter what you say. This story, to me, was never known. I’m not your typical 50 yr old voter. I’m under 30.

This is why he’ll fail as a nominee.

Midwestprincesse on January 8, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Totally agree, ‘Princesse. Considering the growing awareness of rescue and the breathtaking amount of money pet lovers spend on vet care, goods (especially luxury goods) and services for their pets, the potential is certainly there.
This is far from the only reason I can’t stand Mitt Romney. (For the record, I hold as much contempt and more for PETA & HSUS. They are as phony as he is. Please see humanewatch.org & naiaonline.org for anyone inclined to want more info)

I believe the biggest danger would be Santorum’s suggestion that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, Americans have no fundamental right to privacy. Such a stance may make sense in a technical, legal sense, at least as the Court clumsily expressed the thought in the case in question; but the vast majority of Americans passionately believe that there exists a fundamental core of individual liberty, inside of which government may not legislate.

The Court shouldn’t have called it “privacy;” and it certainly shouldn’t have concluded (in Roe v. Wade) that the right of “privacy” includes the right to abort zygotes, foetuses, and even babies within minutes of being fully born. (Actually, I believe that last position is an abomination even under Roe; my, what progress we have made!) Ne’theless, nearly everybody agrees that there is an irreducible shell of personal liberty surrounding every man and woman that protects him from a totalitarian government run amok.

I can prove my case with a single example: Does anybody believe that it would be constitutional for a state to enact a law proscribing how many times per week a husband and wife are allowed to make love in their own home?

If you answer No, then you necessarily believe that (a) such a law breaches that fundamental core of individual liberty, the irreducible shell; and (b) there are inviolable limits to federal and state government beyond those explicitly written into the Constitiution.

To the extent that voters believe Rick Santorum’s dismissal of a “right to privacy” means he rejects the irreducible shell of personal liberty described above, said voters will be very likely to vote for Barack H. Obama over the “theocratic” Rick Santorum.

I doubt Romney wins SC, but he may because a lot of people in South Carolina are eager to prove they don’t hate Mormons, blacks, gays, etc.

The candidates didn’t go after each other tonight…there was a lot of “I agree with x on y” so I’m not sure what the purpose of the debate was unless people just like watching Diane Sawyer do her impersonation of some actress portraying some tenacious liberal moderater.

Romney can get away with sounding more socially conservative than Santorum because that’s not his raison d’etre, it’s frankly peripheral as it should be. It doesn’t offend Romney supporters at all for Romney to be tough on social issues. Romney supporters are almost by definition not those who make abortion and gay marriage into litmus tests. They are just as pissed off when Democrats turn those issues into litmus tests as well.

haner on January 8, 2012 at 12:57 AM

This is well stated. I watched the debate with some moderates, and they were on board with Romney. With Everything he said. These particular moderates are all small business people and that is what they are interested in. Watching them watch, I noticed they almost completely tuned out when the social issues were being discussed.

A lot of dogs probably would like riding on top of the car. It just depends on the breed.

Dr. Tesla on January 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM

I draw a conclusion that you either don’t like dogs or you are one of those people who think they belong in the yard. Not only would I never put my dogs on the roof of my car, I keep them seat-belted in their seat in the car.

Well, I’m not for Gingrich in general – I suppose I am reluctantly in the Romney camp, I guess, though I don’t feel that strongly about it, and am not very impressed with any of our choices this time around. I just don’t think this attack on him was effective.

Sure, if you’re trying to make a comparison on this narrow issue, then Service trumps having a parent who served. But this assumes you view it as a contest. It’s not.

The campaign itself is a contest, but to score a blow with a personal slam like this, you have to convince voters that Gingrich is not only not as awesomely awesome as Paul, but that his lack of service makes him unappreciative of the sacrifice of the troops.

Your typical voter isn’t a soldier themselves. There are some, of course, but the real damage from the chicken-hawk label comes from people who don’t want their loved ones to be sent off by someone who doesn’t understand what it’s like to worry about losing someone. Newt made it clear that he has been in their shoes, and that’s really all he had to do to counter the attack.

He’s not really going to pass a gay marriage amendment and he doesn’t really give a rat’s fingernail about a human life amendment, okay?

He had to say that to sucker the rubes who think he’s a big liberal into NOT voting for the “conservatives”.

Jeebus. Ernesto “Che” Guevara has more conservative street cred than Mittens, and that’s without the Korda photograph!

Anyway, I bet if Che were alive, he would have had the dog put out of its misery quickly instead of driving it around La Habana tied to the roof of Fidel’s staff car, only to joke about it later with Raul.

Relax, I’m pretty much in your demographic myself – I’m not much past 30. I’m just pointing out that young people don’t really vote nearly as much as older ones do.

I don’t mean you don’t exist at all, just that you (and I) aren’t as important in the eyes of political strategists – especially since our demographic doesn’t have so many swing voters – many people our age are solidly on the left, and are spouting inanities over at Daily Kos even as we speak.

I could have worded the previous post better – was exaggerating a bit for emphasis.

draw a conclusion that you either don’t like dogs or you are one of those people who think they belong in the yard. Not only would I never put my dogs on the roof of my car, I keep them seat-belted in their seat in the car.

Rapunzel on January 8, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Dogs love me…they sense my innate goodness, like children do.

If he had the dog cage strapped down well to the car, I don’t tihnk it’s a big issue. I don’t know why he told the media bout it though…i think he was trying to tell a story that makes him seem more human and it kind of backfired on him.

I think a Samoyed or Golden Retriever would like riding on top of a car. I’ve owned both types. :)

I draw a conclusion that you either don’t like dogs or you are one of those people who think they belong in the yard. Not only would I never put my dogs on the roof of my car, I keep them seat-belted in their seat in the car.

Rapunzel on January 8, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Oh Yeah? Well if you really loved your dog your would let him drive sometimes like I do.

The debate showed that Romney is more than ready for the presidency, and will completely destroy Obama.

Every time somebody took a swing at him, he either deftly parried it or made it look petty by not even bothering a response. He slammed George’s gotcha question out of the park, and made Huntsman look two feet tall on the China issue.

Romney has this in the bag, and will annihilate Obama with his uncanny ability to recall information, prepare, and think on his feet.

I draw a conclusion that you either don’t like dogs or you are one of those people who think they belong in the yard. Not only would I never put my dogs on the roof of my car, I keep them seat-belted in their seat in the car.

Thst was the result of a quick google search, so I don’t know what Gallup’s criteria are on a public opinion poll.

But, it is my belief that the public is moving in a certain direction on the issue and Republicans are on the losing end of the stick. They need to abandon the federal amendment idea and adopt a states rights stance on the subject before they get left behind.

You can’t take the risk out of life, and I don’t see it as my business what Romney did with his dog. I don’t care. He was not intentionally trying to harm his dog.

Dr. Tesla on January 8, 2012 at 1:27 AM

It showed poor judgement. And it was neither breed you mentioned it was an Irish Setter and it was a 12-hour drive. And… a dog getting diarrhea like that is a pretty darned good indication the dog was not having a great time.

I used to stalk the mail carrier while awaiting Letters of Acceptance.

First year and a half are the most difficult. Get past those and you can coast to the end.

I was blessed with an exceptional faculty and a traditional school.

Go for the basics – Torts, Property, Contracts, Equitable Remedies, Procedure, Evidence, Criminal Law, Agency and Partnership, Corporations, Trusts and Succession. These are the ones that will pay off after graduation.

Evolution does not create anything. You are working with the wrong mind model. In evolution things only get destroyed. The appearance of creation is caused by the subtraction of what is destroyed. It is very, very different process from creating things.